Simon Willison Quietly Wins With "Field Notes" Energy

I was poking through a few LinkedIn creators and one number basically stopped me mid-scroll: Simon Willison has 15,037 followers and a 217.00 Hero Score while posting only 0.4 times per week. That's not the usual "post daily, ride the algorithm" story. It's the opposite, and it's honestly more interesting.

So I wanted to understand what makes his content work, and why it holds up next to much bigger audiences like Beatrice Vladut (61,464 followers) and Nate Herkelman (36,165 followers). After comparing the numbers and the vibes, a few patterns jumped out.

Here's what stood out:

Simon's posts read like high-signal engineering logs, not motivational content, and that attracts the exact right people
He gets "engagement efficiency" - smaller audience, bigger reaction per follower
He treats LinkedIn like a distribution layer for real artifacts (projects, tests, benchmarks, writeups), not a place to "perform"

Quick side-by-side snapshot: Simon leads on Hero Score despite the smallest audience, which usually means his posts land harder with the people who care.

Creator	Headline (short)	Location	Followers	Hero Score	Posts per week	What it suggests
Simon Willison	Datasette founder	United States	15,037	217.00	0.4	Tight niche, very high trust, strong "artifact" content
Beatrice Vladut	Founder brand + DFY content	Spain	61,464	199.00	N/A	Big top-of-funnel audience, strong positioning and offers
Nate Herkelman	Scale w/o headcount	United States	36,165	197.00	N/A	Operator audience, systems thinking, founder-led distribution

Simon Willison's Performance Metrics

Here's what's interesting: Simon's audience size is modest compared to the other two, but his Hero Score is the highest. When I see that combo, I usually assume two things are true: (1) the audience is extremely well matched to the content, and (2) the creator isn't posting filler just to stay visible.

Key Performance Indicators

Metric	Value	Industry Context	Performance Level
Followers	15,037	Industry average	⭐ High
Hero Score	217.00	Exceptional (Top 5%)	🏆 Top Tier
Engagement Rate	N/A	Above Average	📊 Solid
Posts Per Week	0.4	Moderate	📝 Regular
Connections	724	Growing Network	🔗 Growing

Now, because we don't have engagement rate data, I treat Hero Score as the best proxy for "does this creator get outsized reactions for their size?" And Simon is clearly doing that.

Metric	Simon Willison	Beatrice Vladut	Nate Herkelman	What I'd infer
Followers	15,037	61,464	36,165	Simon is the smallest account here
Hero Score	217.00	199.00	197.00	Simon is the strongest on engagement relative to size
Connections	724	N/A	N/A	Simon's network is curated, not maxed out
Posts Per Week	0.4	N/A	N/A	Low cadence, high intent posting
Best Posting Times (UTC)	02:00-03:00, 14:00-15:00	02:00-03:00, 14:00-15:00	02:00-03:00, 14:00-15:00	Timing likely matters less than relevance, but it's a good baseline

What Makes Simon Willison's Content Work

When I read Simon's writing, it feels like someone handing you their lab notebook. Not "here are 5 tips". More like "I tried this, it broke here, here's the constraint that fixed it." That tone is catnip for technical readers because it's rare on LinkedIn.

1. Artifact-first posts that start with something real

So here's what he does: he often begins with an artifact - a tool, a benchmark, a test harness, a bug, a writeup. That instantly filters the audience to people who care about real work. And it gives the post a spine, because he's not inventing a lesson and then hunting for a story. The thing happened first.

Key Insight: Start with the artifact, then narrate what you learned from it (not the other way around).

This works because artifacts create "proof" without bragging. If you're the founder of an open source project, your credibility isn't a vibe. It's the repo, the docs, the decisions you made, and the tradeoffs you can explain.

Strategy Breakdown:

Element	Simon Willison's Approach	Why It Works
Starting point	Names the tool, test, model, or bug	Gives instant context and authority
Evidence	Specific numbers, constraints, outcomes	Makes the post feel earned, not generic
Takeaway	A measured judgment like "It sounds like..."	Builds trust because it isn't overconfident

2. High specificity, low hype (and people feel the difference)

Most LinkedIn posts that try to teach fall into one of two traps: they either go vague to be accessible, or they go hype-y to be shareable. Simon takes a third route: specific and calm. He'll mention concrete details (model names, test counts, memory usage, failure modes) and then deliver one clean opinion.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

Aspect	Industry Average	Simon Willison's Approach	Impact
Claims	Big promises, broad advice	Narrow claims backed by details	Readers trust the conclusion
Language	"game changer" and "must do"	"interesting" and "impressive"	Tone fits experienced audiences
Examples	Abstract scenarios	Real artifacts and outcomes	Comments become higher quality

And here's the thing: this kind of writing doesn't go as viral in the mass-market sense, but it goes deep. The right people save it, share it privately, and remember who wrote it.

3. "Field notes" structure that rewards attention

I noticed his posts often feel like: observation - evidence - interpretation - next implication. No motivational detours. No forced controversy. It's more like reading a good internal engineering doc, except it's readable.

Want a template that matches this vibe?

Template: "I tried X. The interesting bit was Y (with one concrete detail). It sounds like Z is the real constraint. If you're building this, watch for W."

The reason this hits is simple: it respects the reader. It assumes they're smart. It doesn't pause every sentence to explain what a CLI is. That "we're peers" feeling is a powerful retention tool.

4. Understated CTAs that don't break the spell

A lot of creators (especially bigger ones) end every post with a hard turn into a CTA: "Comment 'guide' and I'll send it." That works for lead gen, but it can also make your content feel transactional.

Simon tends to do softer CTAs: a link, a tag-like ending, or an implied "I'm continuing this thread." It feels more like publishing than marketing.

CTA Style	What it looks like	Why it fits Simon
Resource-forward	"Here's what I built:" + link	The artifact is the CTA
Normative	A crisp statement about engineering duty	It creates identity alignment
Continuation	"I have more to say about this"	Turns posts into a series without begging

Their Content Formula

If you strip away the topics and just look at the shape, Simon's formula is surprisingly consistent. He hooks you with a real thing, stacks details quickly, then ends with a practical implication (sometimes with metadata-ish vibes).

Content Structure Breakdown

Component	Simon Willison's Approach	Effectiveness	Why It Works
Hook	Artifact-first opener ("I published...", "This week I tried...")	High	Starts with action + credibility
Body	Detail cascade: specifics, constraints, results	Very high	Creates trust and keeps attention
CTA	Soft CTA: link, implication, or "Tags" style close	Medium-high	Doesn't feel salesy, encourages saves

The Hook Pattern

He usually opens with something he did or observed, then immediately qualifies it with a detail. Not a big reveal, just a "here's the thing" that signals competence.

Template:

"I tried [artifact/action], and the interesting bit was [specific constraint or result]."

Examples you can borrow (without copying his exact topics): "I built a tiny harness to check X, and the failure mode surprised me." Or "I tested Y against Z, and the result was better than I expected (with one number)."

The Body Structure

He develops ideas like an engineer writing for other engineers. It's not lecture-y. It's closer to reporting.

Body Structure Analysis:

Stage	What They Do	Example Pattern
Opening	Names the artifact + intent	"I wrote a minimal harness..."
Development	Adds constraints and evidence	"The goal is not X, it's Y..."
Transition	Reassessment language	"I hadn't appreciated..." / "It sounds like..."
Closing	Practical implication	"If you want reliability, you need..."

The CTA Approach

His closing is usually the lightest part of the post, and that's deliberate. The psychology is "I'm publishing this because it's useful" instead of "I'm posting this to extract something." If you want to copy that energy, try ending with one of these:

"If you're working on something similar, watch for [constraint]."

"This made me rethink [assumption]."

"Here's the writeup:" + link

Where the comparisons get fun: Beatrice and Nate are more "positioning-forward" creators. Simon is more "artifact-forward." All three work, but they recruit different audiences.

Dimension	Simon Willison	Beatrice Vladut	Nate Herkelman
Primary value	Concrete tools + observations	Founder brand + content services	Operator systems + scaling narratives
Trust engine	Specificity and receipts	Social proof + clarity of offer	Execution stories + founder perspective
Style risk	Too technical for broad reach	Can feel promotional if overdone	Can drift into generic scaling talk
Best fit audience	Engineers, builders, technical leaders	Founders, consultants, creators	Founders, operators, AI-curious teams

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

Lead with an artifact - Start posts with something you actually did (a doc, a chart, a snippet, a before/after), because it creates instant credibility.
Add one constraint and one number - "It failed because X" plus a number (time saved, tests run, users impacted) makes your story feel real fast.
Use a soft close instead of a hard pitch - End with a practical implication or a link to the resource, and let the content do the selling.

Key Takeaways

Simon wins on efficiency - 217.00 Hero Score with 15,037 followers and 0.4 posts per week is what "high trust" looks like.
Specific beats viral - The calm, technical "field notes" style pulls in the right audience and keeps them.
Beatrice and Nate prove other paths work - bigger reach and clearer offers can scale, but Simon's approach is a blueprint for creators who hate fluff.